what's wrong with that?.. If the rich countries coughed up a proper amount of guaranteed funding [ with the appropriate controls and oversight ] and administered it to the needy third world, they would improve immeasurably and get off the dole sooner [ also stop the bitching of the ' insurgent ' elelements claiming racism/elitism and all the other ' isms ' ]..

Hell, even giving the people a steady, reliable soursce of clean, disease free water would jump them lightyears up the ' evolutionary ladder '..

Always gauls me to hear guys like Dr. Dobson of the Focus on the Family going on about Christian values and how we must reach out with the Word of the Lord, but never put it into practice.. Where's the true Christian altruism.. giving ' cause its right, not for what you can get out of it?.. Dobson receives $ 20 million a year, personally, from his ' book royalties.. As a good Christian man, he could live on $ 1 mil and give the other $ 19 to save half of Africa, or the poor of Los Angeles, or any where else that needs help, and not suffer a bit over losing the wide screen plasma TV in his moutain refuge...the same goes for a host of other public, private and national entities.. the only one doing anything in a big way is Bill Gates...

If the have countries want to end resentment and world ills, then pay for it, educate the downtrodden, feed the hungry, heal the sick and get the tin pot despots who are currently lining their Swiss bank accounts on a cut of the Aid money dribbling into their lands, the hell out of office instead of coddling them for their oil/gas/gold/uranium reserves...
A few less ' Stan ' Presidents for Life or Syrian/Saudi ' enlightened leaders 'and we might actually have something to be proud of...

at least some of the rules Annan is suggesting -like not letting those countries who abuse Human Rights get to sit on the Human Rights Commission [ whew that is a tough one ] - are finally verging on common sense..

and hey, giving more to help out some sh&thole, might actually save money down the road because we wouldn't have to invade them later and spend billions on an army to fight them all..

what's wrong with that?.. If the rich countries coughed up a proper amount of guaranteed funding [ with the appropriate controls and oversight ] and administered it to the needy third world, they would improve immeasurably and get off the dole sooner [ also stop the bitching of the ' insurgent ' elelements claiming racism/elitism and all the other ' isms ' ]..

Hell, even giving the people a steady, reliable soursce of clean, disease free water would jump them lightyears up the ' evolutionary ladder '..

Always gauls me to hear guys like Dr. Dobson of the Focus on the Family going on about Christian values and how we must reach out with the Word of the Lord, but never put it into practice.. Where's the true Christian altruism.. giving ' cause its right, not for what you can get out of it?.. Dobson receives $ 20 million a year, personally, from his ' book royalties.. As a good Christian man, he could live on $ 1 mil and give the other $ 19 to save half of Africa, or the poor of Los Angeles, or any where else that needs help, and not suffer a bit over losing the wide screen plasma TV in his moutain refuge...the same goes for a host of other public, private and national entities.. the only one doing anything in a big way is Bill Gates...

If the have countries want to end resentment and world ills, then pay for it, educate the downtrodden, feed the hungry, heal the sick and get the tin pot despots who are currently lining their Swiss bank accounts on a cut of the Aid money dribbling into their lands, the hell out of office instead of coddling them for their oil/gas/gold/uranium reserves...
A few less ' Stan ' Presidents for Life or Syrian/Saudi ' enlightened leaders 'and we might actually have something to be proud of...

at least some of the rules Annan is suggesting -like not letting those countries who abuse Human Rights get to sit on the Human Rights Commission [ whew that is a tough one ] - are finally verging on common sense..

and hey, giving more to help out some sh&thole, might actually save money down the road because we wouldn't have to invade them later and spend billions on an army to fight them all..

but, then, don't mind me..what do I know ?

Click to expand...

Give them all more money? Works for a lot of chavs on the dole...

I'd be happy to see the money go over there if it had to be spent on British kit to help out British industry.

The UN is a failed organization. Take the tsunami disaster. The US and Australia were on the ground in days. It took the UN with its full time 356 day operation a MONTH to get there. Anan's idea is akin to a transfer of wealth from the western countries to the rest of the world. The UN is bloated with high paid bureaucrats that siphon off the lion's share of any resources they receive. If the UN was dissolved tomarrow no one would notice or even care.

buying home grown stuff to supply to the other guy is a method Canada has been using for a long time.. Aid Credits..we put money in a kitty, tell the needy guys to order up what they need [ from a list of reliable suppliers ,we vet, ] and we pay those guys to make and ship the stuff over to the needy.. the ' leaders' at the receiving end don't see any cash - which doesn't mean they can't find a way to ' divert ' shipments to sell on the black market - but nothing is perfect..
one problem with this system was revealed in the recent Tsunami relief efforts..
Aid agencies and wave-hit governments could have bought food and other support materials from closer to the crisis areas or from their own farmers [ thus helping them get back on their feet ] but, instead were forced under the loan/grant rules to buy the rice and whatnot from ' host country' supplies [ Canadian rice at Canadian prices ] thus reducing what they could buy, the time to package and deliver it and the other problems of distribution, etc..

Still a good practice on the whole as it prevents or, rather, inhibits, corruption for the most part [ except for the Food for Oil bit ], but causes other unfortunate side effects..
still, better than letting them go under which can only make things worse..

come up with a more equitable solution and retire with a Nobel Peace Prize..

we both know alot of that money would end up lining the fat cats pockets. Until the UN gets it's house in order, forget it.

Click to expand...

As far as I know the 0.7% of GDP does not have to be donated via the UN... perfectly acceptable for countries to develop there own aid programmes... build a road... build a water treatment plant... whatever...

tomahawk - only just saw your reply... i agree the UN is a pile of shite at the moment... but the principle of some sort of worldwide body is a good one... its just the UN has a hell of a lot of reforming to do...

rocketeer has good points on the disadvantages of 'us' organising aid for 'them'... having to buy canadian grain at canadian prices etc... I'd add another one to the list... one of the best things we could do for these countries is to improve their quality of governance... to make it impossible, or at least difficult, for corruption to operate in that country... one mechanism for doing this is to offer these countries lots of cash to spend as they chose - but in return they must use proper auditing, allow the media to investigate how projects are running etc etc...

if their governments get really really good then these people could have glorious, blessed leaders such as ones the UK and the US have!!!

Now that is interesting I better look up my terms and conditions of service, because in the UN I am employed for a full pension takes 30 years.

It is always easy to knock the UN. It is inefficient etc, but this is how the member states want it to be.

Remember Bosnia where the Security Council kept increasing the mandate, but refused to increase the troop numbers? Guess which countries kept voting for that (give you a clue they included both the US and UK).

If you want the UN to be as fast acting as the navies of the US and UK - are you willing to pay for it?

Now that is interesting I better look up my terms and conditions of service, because in the UN I am employed for a full pension takes 30 years.

It is always easy to knock the UN. It is inefficient etc, but this is how the member states want it to be.

Remember Bosnia where the Security Council kept increasing the mandate, but refused to increase the troop numbers? Guess which countries kept voting for that (give you a clue they included both the US and UK).

If you want the UN to be as fast acting as the navies of the US and UK - are you willing to pay for it?

Click to expand...

And on that note, given that the US currently owes the UN around $1.5billion, or 38% of the total arrears (see http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/tables/core/un-us-05.htm ), perhaps the organisation might perform better if it was properly funded by the major western nations. Alternatively, perhaps the west should wait until all those spongers in the developing world pay their way. You know, all the gits in Sudan, Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo and so on, who are obviously hoarding their substantial wealth to avoid paying their shares.

I've been seconded to the UN more than once, and I agree it is among the most bureaucratic, frustrating and inept organisations to be associated with - even worse than UK MOD. And it continues to be enormously confused about whether it is a military, political, diplomatic, humanitarian or human rights organisation, which doesn't help. But when you see the small core of committed and professional people who are delivering near-miracles in some of the worst trouble spots of the world, it's difficult to view the US complaints as anything but mean-spirited whining since they fail to offer to the UN, or deliver unilaterally, any alternative.

Inf/MP's point is well made. Look at the UN, and you are looking in a mirror. If it isn't what the member states want it to be, then whose fault is that, exactly? It doesn't take the brains of an archbishop to work out who can put it right.

Oh yes, and it's worth noting that the US and UK second around 480 personnel each to UN peacekeeping missions, which currently deploy a total of some 66000 people - military and civilian, around the world. That's about 0.5% of the total, and about the same as Benin (population 7M). Stats available at http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/data/pktp05.htm